Regarding the May 8 editorial, "Shorter school calendar means students learn less," seems to me we’ve had some mighty bright leaders of our city over the years who came out of our school system.

In my day, we started after Labor Day and ended by June 1. And we went for a total of 11 years rather than 12, to boot.

ELOYS W. WALLACE

Wilmer 

Sexual orientation doesn’t define value 

A person’s sexual orientation does not define his or her value as a human.

It’s the ultimate hypocrisy for those objecting to legally recognizing gay unions to claim religious reasons for doing so. Our constitution forbids establishment of a national religion and making laws based on religious doctrine.

When religious leaders are promoting rules against civil policies, they are suggesting that we have become a dogmatic nation, with no tolerance for anything or anyone with beliefs contrary to their religious doctrines.

Marriage and the family have evolved and have been redefined in the 20th and 21st centuries. Gay people have quietly lived among us and contributed to our growth.

Divorces and the cohabitation of unwed couples are at all-time highs. All citizens, since the founding of this country, have had obligations and are entitled to the right to pursue happiness within the bounds of the law.

My conscience and thoughts are not led by any one individual but by my life’s experiences, education, religious exposure, reading, entertainment and inter- 

action with others.

Those who would be led to act based on the perceptions of others keep us in turmoil and bring into question what humanity means.

WILLIE HENRY REID

Mobile 

Same-sex marriage doesn’t make sense 

From my formative years, I was taught that marriage was a sacred union between a man and a woman whose primary purpose was the procreation and education of children.

If you accept that premise, it is illogical and contrary to common sense that two individuals of the same sex can enter into a marriage contract.

Whether you believe in divine creation or evolution, it cannot be denied that male and female species are different anatomically for the sole purpose of procreating the species.

Two creatures of the same sex will never be able to produce offspring. Hence members of the opposite sex must form a union to perpetuate the species.

From the earliest days of recorded civilization, that union has been called marriage.

The proponents of same-sex marriage argue that a same-sex couple’s civil liberties are being violated when they are not allowed to marry.

If that is the case, shouldn’t the argument be that the tenets of the law that are being violated be amended, rather than redefining the long-held concept that marriage is the union of couples of the opposite sex?

Rational beings have been endowed with the gift of free will. Therefore they can live according to their moral upbringing and their conscience. They can elect to cohabitate with whomever they please and engage in any form of sexual activity.

But let’s not confuse the issue by denigrating the definition and purpose of marriage.